I've alway wonder, since geography affect out genes and physiology...why are indians (brown people) are one of the hairest people on the earth? India can get even hotter than china...but how come asians are hairless while the browns are hairy?

btw if we do ever enter ice age(I highly doubt, since global warming is a problem) I would just go the gap and buy myself a jacket...I highly doubt that our evolution advancement will be a problem for us asians..since were well off with finance and stores such as the gap / banana republic exist.

it may have something to do with the time they got there... i mean evolution isnt a 100 yr process heh take a while... plus for all we know hair may actually be a more dominant gene

And in the two articles I posted prior, the first one if you read the entire article you'd understand why it was relevent to my arguement since it basically proves me right. Language does increase one mental flexibility.

The second of the two previous articles I posted, I posted because the article emphasizes how complex the human genome is and what language did they use to compare the complex human genome to? English? French? Egyptian? No. Chinese.

And here I thought you were going to be able to read between the lines but I guess my expectations were to high.

And I wasn't going to respond at all to your post (no offense) since the two articles I posted above is enough and I think you'd agree but I feel the need to correct your rhetorical question. (Below)

How do you define intelligence, and how do you measure it?

Just because one can't measure intelligence with a ruler doesn't mean intelligence can't be measured. You're familiar with the word 'test' correct? How about IQ tests? What do you think IQ tests measure? Hopes and dreams? And what kind of intelligence are you talking about? Academic intelligence? Or everyday common sense street smart social intelligence? Lets see I'd define a person of your everyday intelligence as a person that knows not to step in sh*t rather than on it. Is that an acceptable definition? Or how about not running with your eyes closed? Maybe, look both way before crossing the street? Did I just define intelligence? How bout just a life form with the simple thought of self preservation.

First article: "Demetriou acknowledges that his interpretation of the data requires that additional experiments show that Westerners who learn to read only Chinese score higher on spatial tasks than do Chinese who learn to read only an alphabetic language."

Second article: This is all advertising Chinese as a second language, not as a first. And just because it's inspired people doesn't mean much. Paris inspired a bunch of people too (just pick up the first romance novel you find in the library). Does not make you more intelligent.

And in the two articles I posted prior, the first one if you read the entire article you'd understand why it was relevent to my arguement since it basically proves me right. Language does increase one mental flexibility.

If the title of the article is any indiciation, it's about learning a second language. Therefore, I would assume that it's saying that learning a second language increases mental flexibility, which I agree with. I just don't believe that having one language as your mother tongue is any better than having another language.

The second of the two previous articles I posted, I posted because the article emphasizes how complex the human genome is and what language did they use to compare the complex human genome to? English? French? Egyptian? No. Chinese.

Chinese is complex. I get that. I believe I said that too. I'm not saying that Chinese isn't complex. I'm saying that a complex language doesn't cause someone to be more intelligent.

And I wasn't going to respond at all to your post (no offense) since the two articles I posted above is enough and I think you'd agree but I feel the need to correct your rhetorical question. (Below)Just because one can't measure intelligence with a ruler doesn't mean intelligence can't be measured. You're familiar with the word 'test' correct? How about IQ tests? What do you think IQ tests measure? Hopes and dreams?

The efficiency of IQ tests is very questionable, and many experts are skeptical about it. First of all, you can prep for an IQ test. It's very logic heavy (especially the ones on the internet), and that can be learned (there's even a math category for it).Second, there's a different IQ test for different ages, or the scores are curved based on age. While a person becomes more knowledgable over the years, they don't become more intelligent, right? Therefore, why should age be a variable in IQ tests if they're measuring IQ? Third, intelligence and IQ tests end up being circular reasoning. How intelligent you are is defined by how well you do on an IQ test. How you do on an IQ test depends on how intelligent you are.

And what kind of intelligence are you talking about? Academic intelligence? Or everyday common sense street smart social intelligence? Lets see I'd define a person of your everyday intelligence as a person that knows not to step in sh*t rather than on it. Is that an acceptable definition? Or how about not running with your eyes closed? Maybe, look both way before crossing the street? Did I just define intelligence? How bout just a life form with the simple thought of self preservation.

I don't know. You were the one that said Asian languages make someone more intelligent. You should be the one answering that question.

And no, those aren't acceptable definitions. Can you imagine? "In psychology, intelligence is directly determined by how often one avoids stepping in sh*t. This number divided by time equals IQ."

I do not know about all other places but here in NYC we have 3 specialized high schools that require special aptitude tests to get in. Majority of those accepted are Asians, second are Whites, and a tiny little percentage of "others" (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION).

Year after year Asians top the list, year after year, Asians are in the top 1% of their graduating class even though Asians barely take up a percentage of NYC's total population.

If there were no affirmative action, Asians would get even more seats at these specialized schools. If there were no affirmative action, Asians would get more seats in IVY schools. If getting into top schools were based on academic intelligence alone, Asians would excel even further.

Am I irked? Yes. Do I hate affirmative action? Yes. Why? Because I was passed up on my first choice college because I was beat out by another minority with a lower GPA and a much lower SAT score.

Do I believe that Asians are more evolved and more intelligent? HELL YES!

If you are Asian and you feel you are dumb, you are not! You are just lazy! Go hit the books! Chances are, you are smarter than 99% of the US population.

You forgot to mention that asians are less muscular. A long time ago humans needed muscles to hunt, fish, and do other activities. Now we don't, becuase we rely on our intelligence and wisdom. I'm going to say this out of the majority. The majority of asians are smarter than the majority of whites/blacks. I'm not saying ALL asians are smarter than black and white people i'm just saying most. Of course there are some white and black people who are more intelligent than asian people.
Evolution is adapting to the enviroment right? Well in the time we're living in, we don't rely on muscles anymore. We rely on our wisdom. To be successful you need to be smart, unless you become an athlete. Also athletes are people that rely on their strength no? Have you noticed that the top athletes are mostly all black and white?
Of course these are just my own opinions but i think they are almost exhaustively correct.

I do not know about all other places but here in NYC we have 3 specialized high schools that require special aptitude tests to get in. Majority of those accepted are Asians, second are Whites, and a tiny little percentage of "others" (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION).

Year after year Asians top the list, year after year, Asians are in the top 1% of their graduating class even though Asians barely take up a percentage of NYC's total population.

If there were no affirmative action, Asians would get even more seats at these specialized schools. If there were no affirmative action, Asians would get more seats in IVY schools. If getting into top schools were based on academic intelligence alone, Asians would excel even further.

Am I irked? Yes. Do I hate affirmative action? Yes. Why? Because I was passed up on my first choice college because I was beat out by another minority with a lower GPA and a much lower SAT score.

Do I believe that Asians are more evolved and more intelligent? HELL YES!

If you are Asian and you feel you are dumb, you are not! You are just lazy! Go hit the books! Chances are, you are smarter than 99% of the US population.

What makes you think that the higher academic performance of Asians means that it's due to a genetic reason? You're ignoring the fact that the Asian culture leans very heavily towards academics.

I live in NYC too, and I'm in Stuyvesant, the big shot school. There are ten Asians around every corner. I consider half of them to be stupid. They're studious, but ask critical thinking questions, and they haven't the slightest clue. I have a group of Asian friends, and they never get what they learn in class. They get 90s on their tests, but that's only after studying hard and calling up five different people.

@ Siegfried

Scientist and reputable scholars back this up with studies and tests that so far proves my arguement right. So what do you know that scientists and other professionals who've done studies and conducted proper tests don't?

Care to make references, with names? I'm fairly certain that there's only been a handful of experiments backing up your argument, but each media outlet is announcing the news, so it just seems like everyone agrees.

One has to understand and comprehend something in order to claim that they're knowledgable of it and the ability to understand and comprehend falls in the catagory of intelligence. So if one becomes more knowledgable in the field of academia, say for example, if one decides abstract algebra is next to impossible while another's able to expand his/her ability to understand and comprehend and solve the problem than he/she becomes more intelligent.

So more knowledge=more intelligence? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that intelligence is when one person can more easily grasp an idea than another, with all things being equal. Say person A has taken pre-calculus, and person B hasn't. Assume all other things are the same. A understands calculus better than B, but B understands biology better. (Ignore preferences) B is smarter, isn't he? A's pre-calc gave him an advantage in calc. Therefore, the knowledge you have shouldn't affect how intelligent you are. If knowledge was a factor, then A should be smarter, or the same as B.

Are you going to give a first grade student the same test a college professor takes? The academic system and the way the school system works is real. There are grades and tests that one has to pass in order go onto the next and gain more knowledge. Not everyone is home schooled therefore the curriculum that a general population of people is required to follow is set forth by the system. That's why certain IQ tests require certain qualifications. Age, for example.

An IQ test should be measuring something innate in a person. Unless their brain has not yet finished developing, a child can be just as intelligent as a college professor, correct? So why does age matter, unless knowledge plays a role in it? Actually, IQ tests on the internet (I forget about the real ones, so tell me if it's different) don't ask for you age, but for your level of education.

As for defining intelligence, I leave that up to the philosophers. As far as I know, intelligence has been pretty much an axiom, the same way time is.

Although while we're still on this topic, a new thought occurred to me: how do we know how effective IQ tests are? There isn't another way to measure how intelligent a person is. Grades? SAT scores? But how do we know those effectively measure intelligence? Simple interaction with a person? But that's very subjective.

Below are some articles on what types of intelligence there are and how they can be measured.

The first article seems to avoid the point of why IQ tests are effective. It just says that people who are against IQ tests are prejudiced (and by the way, I don't believe everyone is equally intelligent, and my IQ scores are pretty high), it explains why there is a bit of discrepancy, and then goes on to explain how it can help the admission process.

Second: only says the type of questions given, not how they measure intelligence. Oh, and it says right on the top that there are 29 general information and knowledge questions. I think you'll agree that knowledge is not a subset of intelligence.

Third: Multiple intelligence test is vastly different from the regular intelligence test. As it says on the page itself, it measures special skills, which are called intelligences.

Fourth: The bottom of the page will argue for me. The rest is just an overview of the types of IQ tests.

I've provided an article (http://findarticles....67/ai_n13595554) that states that asian kids in general are smarter than others that they've tested against and so far all tests have proven it and this intellectual edge is linked to language. It doesn't matter what you believe or not because tests and studies have been done by professionals and so far the results disagree with you.

You've already given me this one, and I've already argued against it.

And yes, it's terrible to arguing against most people, but I'd like to believe that every opinion matters as much as the rest. Mainly because the majority has been proven wrong so many times in history.

this made me think of what someone said on tv.. i'll repeat it here, but by no means does it mean i am open for bashing! nor am i a religous person/believe in god/using the words 'black' 'white' 'yellow' with means of racism ectect, i am just repeating what i heard on tv:

god made the black skin people 1st, and then thought that they were too dark, he then made the white skin people, and then decided that they were too white, finally, the yellow skin people were made - and they were just perfect.

- hahaa.. well.. to tell the truth, i laughed when i heard it on tv (a chinese person said this)! would this mean that asians are more advance?! - i dont believe god made us by the way.

I just wanted to add that I heard this as a joke from my uncle...I'm Filipino...he implied that the joke meant that Asians are "perfect".

I've heard similar ones. God made man in the oven like gingerbread men. He made blacks because it was overcooked and burnt. He made whites and it was undercooked and pasty. Then it came out perfect, voila! Asians! LOL... pretty funny.

I have another one but it is slightly offensive, why are the hand palms and bottom of feet on black people white? Because when GOD spraypainted them he said, "put your hands on the wall" LOL...

I guess the position never left their genes because I see them putting their hands against walls and cars on the TV show COPS all the time! haahahhaahhaa!

i don't mean this to be offensive to anyone, but i think it's kinda true...

think back thousands of years ago...think of all the discoveries and accomplishments the asians made for the world... gun powder, toothbrush....the list goes on....

Between inventing gunpowder, and stealing the idea of gunpowder to invent guns, I'd say the latter was a much more brilliant thing to do. So either white people are smarter than yellow people, or your arguments fails.

Between inventing gunpowder, and stealing the idea of gunpowder to invent guns, I'd say the latter was a much more brilliant thing to do. So either white people are smarter than yellow people, or your arguments fails.

I'm not a historian but I'd always believed that the first firearms (cannon and rocketry) were first invented in Asia - either in China or the Muslim world.

If Asians are more evolved because they have less hair, and monkeys have more hair, wouldn't that make frogs more evolved than either of them? Frogs have no hair!

Hair and evolution have no correlation. You can't determine the amount of time that has passed from the most distant primate connection to modern humans.

Also, time by itself is not an indicator of evolution. Did you know that Chimpanzees have actually undergone more evolutionary changes than humans? It's true! -live urls are not allowed in your usergroup- dang! I can't post so you'll have to Google.

But are chimpanzees more evolved than humans? Well, at least they're not racist and haven't polluted the entire planet! (I'm not saying Asians do this more than others btw).

About the difference between English and Chinese. English has at least 500,000 words. No one knows the total number. Chinese, although I'm not an expert, doesnt' have more than 200,000.
-live urls are not allowed in your usergroup-
-live urls are not allowed in your usergroup- (sorry - Google)

Compare those two. I'm sorry I don't have a better source for Chinese.

Anyway, I hope this conversation won't devolve into an us vs. them debate. All people have strengths and weaknesses, and hopefully the world can coexist peacefully and respect all races.

About the technological race - it's true that China has invented an amazing number of technological innovations. Chinse people are excellent Engineers! However, so are Western Engineers, including Scots and English. Frankly, these days I'm more impressed by cultures that put value on preserving the environment, since tech. cleverness has really hurt progress more than advancing it lately.

About the difference between English and Chinese. English has at least 500,000 words. No one knows the total number. Chinese, although I'm not an expert, doesnt' have more than 200,000.

About the technological race - it's true that China has invented an amazing number of technological innovations. Chinse people are excellent Engineers! However, so are Western Engineers, including Scots and English. Frankly, these days I'm more impressed by cultures that put value on preserving the environment, since tech. cleverness has really hurt progress more than advancing it lately.

And how many english words are synonyms for another? say for the word kill, it can also be slaughter assasinate murder dependin on the situation. And how many English people know evry English word? i bet none, why? new words are bein made as we speak. wat about how many people know evry chinese word? theyre are many people who know evry word. My grandpa is one for example.

In this topic, I have no opinion. I believe in a balance of evolvement in all human species. Its a matter of environmental exposures. If an asian is exposed to non-azn environmental factors then well he/she wud be like any other non-azn, and that goes vice-versa. As for more hair or less hair, it because of different environmental factors as well

To believe one race or another is more evolved is to be racist. The Brits thought they were more evolved and went about to colonized the world and bring people to their god. In their process, they enslaved the people of India (to tea plantations) so that their people could have their afternoon tea. In America, they enslaved blacks (to cotton plantations) so their people could wear the latest in fashion. Technology and Gov't gave them the advantage. This doesn't make them more evolved. Just makes them .....put your own expletive here. :shocked:

I agree fully. All humans are on the same rung of the evolutionary ladder (which is also probably why they all think they are more advanced than the other members of the species ;-) )

James Watson, the DNA pioneer who sparked a public outcry by claiming that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, has 16 times more genes likely to be of black origin than has the average white European. Icelandic company deCODE Genetics analysed Watson's genome after he had made it publicly available. His genes are what you'd expect in someone with an African great-grandparent, says deCODE.

Some of you either haven't grasped the concept of intelligence OR refused to understand the arguments of others.

It is EXTREMELY easy to say, "Well, this is not conclusive enough to determine blah blah blah."; however it is much more difficult - if not broaderline impossible - to be 100% certain in proving a theory.

Before I went any further, allow me to provide a certain Professor Rushton's studies (just google [Rushton, racial intelligence]).

Rushton has not only complied a comparative list of East Asian-White-Black Intelligence difference, he also complied a list of their behavoral differences; which ranged from law-abideness to aggression.

In his research, there is a tendency for Asians (Eastern) and Blacks to occupy the two ends of the spectrum. For example, Asians are the LEAST aggressive, followed closely by Whites and then the Blacks are at the end. A similiar pattern can be seen with law-abideness (Asians being the most law-abiding).

The average East Asian IQ is about 6-7 points higher than Europeans (that is about half a standard deviation in most IQ tests). This is not a "big deal" but it's significant (that's a stats term, which indicates that the differences is not random and is meaningful).

Of course there are also probably 2000 other little things that suggests the same thing.

1. Aggression. Asian have the LOWEST crime rate, PERIOD. Jails are full of Blacks and have its share of Europeans... but Asians are RARE (East Asian are nonexistant almost) in jail.

2. Physical developement. Ever notice why Aliens are always pictures as short and skinny with a disproportionally large head? Because most people believe that's the next step in evolution.

3. History. Asians have a rich culture background. The Chinese is the oldest civilisation (5000 years).

4. Antrophology. Homo Sapians moved from Africa to Europe THEN branched off to Asia, thus creating three main branch of human evolution. Due to the colder climate and the scarcity of food in Asia, Asians had developed larger cranials. Many independent studies had shown that Asians DOES indeed have the "biggest brain".

5. If you compare lower animals with human, you would notice certain things. Humans are more family orientated, less sexually driven (compare to animals), more agile, more intelligent. Now compare different human groups, and you will realize that Asians fit into the top tier in each catergory.

Surely, anyone can say "oh, just cause a scientific research said this, it doesn't mean it's true..." Obviously, however, it does indicate that it is LIKELY to be true; more likely than other.

I am a biochem student at McGill University in Montreal, and one of my teacher who taught biology was asked a similar question in class about human evolution. He said he doesn't believe the difference in evolution (it's gene pool selection) in significant enough in different races... HOWEVER, if he has to "guess", he thought East Asians seem to have a more advanced gene pool due to the colder climate in Asia and the culture developement in Asia (lots of student were taken aback when he said it, but none too surprised). After all, if you HAVE to pick a race that you believe is the most advanced... who would you guess? All indication points toward Asians.

Remember in a court of law, you never have to PROVE 100% someone is guilty. You just have to provide enough proof so he CANNOT be innocent (it's called proving beyond a reasonable doubt). With THIS much indepentent proof stating that Asians are more likely to be superior... how can anyone reasonably believe otherwise?

Btw, some of you don't believe in IQ tests or academic achievement or university attendency... but think about it this way: IF THEY MEANT NOTHING, then why are a certain group of people consistantly better at them? A certain genetic attribute MUST have allowed this to happen. If flipping a coin is random, then getting heads should be 50% and tails should be 50%. If IQ test does not show who is more intelligent then all races should score the same on it. Every method we have today suggests that Asians are at the top of the evolution ladder, why isn't that enough?

Casanova333 props to you! that was a good read and well researched for a biochem student!!

you doing your bsc? or phd?im doing my phd now in molecular medicine and i always thought that people within science had advantage to those that are not - and you pretty much proved my point here! (uh oh! another debate? hahaaa)

It's my third year (B of Chem). People in science are naturally more logical; because the way we approach a problem (what I mean is that logical people go into science, NOT that science makes people logical, in case someone wants to argue that too, lol).

People in science tend to be less "politically correct" also, since we worship truth and logics more than being "nice" and saying "everyone's equal".

Also, I was a victim of AA too in the US. I went to BX Science in NYC instead of Stuv cause some European or minority group took my space. But, I loved BX Science, so no foul done.

It's my third year (B of Chem). People in science are naturally more logical; because the way we approach a problem (what I mean is that logical people go into science, NOT that science makes people logical, in case someone wants to argue that too, lol).

People in science tend to be less "politically correct" also, since we worship truth and logics more than being "nice" and saying "everyone's equal".

Also, I was a victim of AA too in the US. I went to BX Science in NYC instead of Stuv cause some European or minority group took my space. But, I loved BX Science, so no foul done.

YO! Ex science graduate here too! But I am much older, class of 92'!

Back in the day STUY and BX Science took turns being first place in specialized schools for many years, it seems today Stuy is steady in first place.

Actually. I think the very idea of "more evolved" or "more advanced evolution" is wrong.
What do you actually mean by more "advanced". Evolution is all about adapting to the current environment. In our CURRENT environment, intelligence gives more advantage for survival than other qualtities. However, I doubt Einstein will fare as well as big hairy apemen in the Ice Age. (No offence to him though =P)

In my opinion, there is no such thing as "more evolved". Just whether certain traits are better in certain environments. If the environment changes, certain traits will be selected for, others will be selected against. It is only us egotistic humans who always wish to compete and compare and be the top. The very word "advanced" is nothing more than a human invention and we whatever we guage, we guage using our own human standards.

However, I doubt Einstein will fare as well as big hairy apemen in the Ice Age. (No offence to him though =P)

Yes, yes... but who would you say is a more advanced lifeform? Albert Einstein or Hubba, the Caveman?

What makes you believe Einstein would have any problem adapting to the Ice Age? First of all, an Ice Age does not simple come into being... It's a slow process, by then Einstein would have come up with something... After all, people live in the North Pole, and they are not dying off left, right and center, are they?

Intelligence is the BASIS of evolution (in a way). Sure, animals grow thumbs, wings, legs, furs... etc... to survive. BUT how does the most advanced form of life survive on our green earth (Homo Sapians)? We adapt, we invent and we overcome. That's what Intelligence is all about.

The average Asian is much more likely to success in the scientific world, and thus much more likely to contribute to "adapting" to a changing climate or things of that nature.

Intelligence might not be the ONLY indictor of evolution, but it is a VERY strong indication.

In his research, there is a tendency for Asians (Eastern) and Blacks to occupy the two ends of the spectrum. For example, Asians are the LEAST aggressive, followed closely by Whites and then the Blacks are at the end. A similiar pattern can be seen with law-abideness (Asians being the most law-abiding).

How do you know this is because of their genes, and not their culture? Asia has the strictest law system, compared to the other continents, and this causes the people to be better behaved (e.g. children were better behaved and less aggressive back when schoolteachers were allowed to beat them).

As for black people, I'd guess that has something to do with their environment, since it's usually them who live in the slums and worse parts of the city. And of course, having money makes a person less susceptable to crime, because if you're in a comfortable environment, there's no need to go to the extremes.

2. Physical developement. Ever notice why Aliens are always pictures as short and skinny with a disproportionally large head? Because most people believe that's the next step in evolution.

(Asians actually have large heads?) Aliens also have big eyes and long fingers and large, bulging stomachs. Those are more characteristic of Europeans. I doubt how people perceive aliens has to do with evolution. Actually, since aliens are usually seen as antagonists, it could very well be said that how people perceive aliens could be a (subconscious) description of what we find to be physically unapealling (and, of course, what people see as physically apealling somewhat has to do with what is "best" for our gene pool).

3. History. Asians have a rich culture background. The Chinese is the oldest civilisation (5000 years).

b*llsh*t. Sorry, but that really pisses me off. China was the last of the ancient river civilizations; Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Indus River Valley all came before it. Every single country that lies over an ancient civilization has a rich cultural background. African nations have rich cultures too - just because they're poor and Europe stomped all over them doesn't make their culture any less.

4. Antrophology. Homo Sapians moved from Africa to Europe THEN branched off to Asia, thus creating three main branch of human evolution. Due to the colder climate and the scarcity of food in Asia, Asians had developed larger cranials. Many independent studies had shown that Asians DOES indeed have the "biggest brain".

Wasn't the Americas and Oceania the last to have humans? If this branching off has to do with evolution, then shouldn't the Native Americans and the New Guineans have the highest IQs and such?

5. If you compare lower animals with human, you would notice certain things. Humans are more family orientated, less sexually driven (compare to animals), more agile, more intelligent. Now compare different human groups, and you will realize that Asians fit into the top tier in each catergory.

What makes another animal lowe than humans? Why are our attributes better than theirs? For all anyone knows, having lots of sex and babies and not caring about them is the best way about evolution. It's pretty widely known that roaches were around for a long time and survived a bunch of stuff that other animals went extinct from. Well, I'm sure those other animals had better family values and less sex and more intelligence than a bug. Yet, it is the roach which lives on, and that is the "goal" of evolution - the be well adapted to your environment and be able to quickly adapt to a new environment.

Btw, some of you don't believe in IQ tests or academic achievement or university attendency... but think about it this way: IF THEY MEANT NOTHING, then why are a certain group of people consistantly better at them? A certain genetic attribute MUST have allowed this to happen.

But the problem is what do these IQ tests actually measure? Some people are better at them, I will agree to that. However, why are they better at it? How do you know it's not something cultural? Are you sure that someone with more knowledge will not be able to answer the questions any better? Asians are very well known for being academically rigorous, and until the IQ test becomes less controversial, it's questionable if the Asian culture has anything to do with it.

Yes, yes... but who would you say is a more advanced lifeform? Albert Einstein or Hubba, the Caveman?

Advanced how? More genes, more chromosomes?

What makes you believe Einstein would have any problem adapting to the Ice Age? First of all, an Ice Age does not simple come into being... It's a slow process, by then Einstein would have come up with something... After all, people live in the North Pole, and they are not dying off left, right and center, are they?

I think you're looking at the specifics of the situation. Just hypothetically speaking, if Einstein and a caveman were suddenly thrown onto the North Pole, who would survive for longer?Note that intelligence in one subject is not intelligence in all subjects. Most of the most brilliant scientists and mathematicians are idiots when it comes to common sense and street-smarts. I've even heard of a mathematician that can't tie his shoelaces.

Intelligence is the BASIS of evolution (in a way). Sure, animals grow thumbs, wings, legs, furs... etc... to survive. BUT how does the most advanced form of life survive on our green earth (Homo Sapians)? We adapt, we invent and we overcome. That's what Intelligence is all about.

Absolutely not; stop flattering yourself. Humans are not the last stage of evolution. I've already mentinoed earlier that cockaroaches are probably braindead and yet, have lived the longest. Humans have been around for about 6,000 years, and we'll either die from global warming or nukes in 50 years. Our intelligence will not be keeping us alive. Also, Neanderthals were more intelligent than Cro Magnons. However, the Neanderthals died out and the Cro Magnons became the present humans. How do you explain that, if intelligence is the epitome of evolutoin? And then look at common bacteria (say, e. coli). We can reach the sky and the heavens above. But what does that have to do with evolution? The e. coli have us outnumbered, the rats and the cockaroaches have us outnumbered, and and every bacteria is adapting faster than us. When we and our skyscrapers are long and gone, mold will still be alive and strong. We make the environment adapt to ourselves, rather than adapting to it, and that's fine; but how is that evolution?

I think the problem lies in the usage of "advanced". If you consider cockroaches more "advanced" merely because they are more numerous, then we have very different views on what's "advanced".

It's impossible to argue, if our fundemental views are different. "Advanced" to me, means someone who's smarter, more complex, "harder to become". For example, any idiot can be a busboy (with some training), but very few can become a biochemist. This is what I base my views on.

Btw, did you know that most IQ tests are conducted with children under the age of 6? They are given problems, and each one of them are supposed to solve it in their own ways (this is different than the traditional written IQ tests). Asians score better in those as well, our slower growth rate notwithstanding (because Asians ages slightly slowly, an age 6 Asian only have the relative develpement of a younger European). So, "basically" an Asian child (relatively younger) can score better than an age 6 European. Did you know that it takes 9.5 months to 10 for an Asian woman to give birth (compared to 9 months of an European)? Black babies only need 8-8.5 months.

I will not argue that Asian did not have a culture advantage... we do. But, there are research (Rushton) with ADOPTED Asian children (with European parents) vs ADOPTED European children (with Asian parents); take a WILD guess which group scored higher (hint: the Asian children with European parents).

One of Rushton's speeches at the McGill University really got to me: "It is mathematically impossible for three independently develope groups of human to have the same intelligence."

Think about it, we have different height, different skin color, different eye color... YET exactly the same intelligence? WTF?

Btw, Europeans have access to higher education more readily than Asians (especially during the Culture Revolution in China). This did not prevent the Chinese from having a higher IQ.

Like I said, it is FAR too easy to raise a doubt (maybe it's because of blah blah instead of the obvious answer). But sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one. Since it's impossible for all three races to have the same intelligence, who has the better chance to be the smartest (look at all the signs)?

BTW: China DOES have 5000 years of history. There's fossils and records (technically, it's a bit less than 5000, but it's a lot earlier than Egypt of Geece).

Also, your example of Einstein and the caveman (where they are magically put into the Ice Age) is a logical fallacy.

Why? Because I could say "People wearing bullet proof vests are superior." OR "People have can swim are superior."; simply by putting them in a situation where a bullet is about to hit or in the ocean. You cannot create a uneven situation to prove a point, that's not (what we call in science), a CONTROLLED environment.

If the Ice Age is coming, then Einstein will be much better prepared to handle it than the Caveman; if a disease is spreading, Einstein will be much better prepared to handle it than the Caveman; if some barbaric tribe is attacking a village, Einstein will be much better prepared to handle it.

You can't simply put both men in the cold, knowing one has a natural coat (hairy). That logical fallacy 101. When given time to prepare (because environmental changes are slow), the smarter person WILL survive better (that's whole point of being intelligent).

What makes another animal lowe than humans? Why are our attributes better than theirs? For all anyone knows, having lots of sex and babies and not caring about them is the best way about evolution. It's pretty widely known that roaches were around for a long time and survived a bunch of stuff that other animals went extinct from. Well, I'm sure those other animals had better family values and less sex and more intelligence than a bug. Yet, it is the roach which lives on, and that is the "goal" of evolution - the be well adapted to your environment and be able to quickly adapt to a new environment.

Uhh.. how about the fact that humans are the ones to domesticate animals, and not the other way around? The fact that we're intelligent makes us better. If we didn't have that, we wouldn't have developed tools and still be doing who knows what. What does the survival rate of an animal have to with how "advance" it is? Just because you can screw like jack rabbits doesn't mean you're the best in the world.

But the problem is what do these IQ tests actually measure? Some people are better at them, I will agree to that. However, why are they better at it? How do you know it's not something cultural? Are you sure that someone with more knowledge will not be able to answer the questions any better? Asians are very well known for being academically rigorous, and until the IQ test becomes less controversial, it's questionable if the Asian culture has anything to do with it.

That's not a problem at all, IQ tests measure the intelligence of a person. And some people are better than other because they're smarter. Even if culture does have an affect on these tests, it really can't influence the results by wide margin. The tests don't ask you questions knowledge based questions, like "Who was the 12th president of the United States"; all the questions are logic based, such as puzzle solving or some logic riddles. Knowledge has little to do with intelligence; there are so many people in school who try so hard, but still perform miserably while others don't try at all and end up with 90+ averages.

Advanced how? More genes, more chromosomes?

Yes. And a more developed thought process.

Absolutely not; stop flattering yourself. Humans are not the last stage of evolution. I've already mentinoed earlier that cockaroaches are probably braindead and yet, have lived the longest. Humans have been around for about 6,000 years, and we'll either die from global warming or nukes in 50 years. Our intelligence will not be keeping us alive. Also, Neanderthals were more intelligent than Cro Magnons. However, the Neanderthals died out and the Cro Magnons became the present humans. How do you explain that, if intelligence is the epitome of evolutoin? And then look at common bacteria (say, e. coli). We can reach the sky and the heavens above. But what does that have to do with evolution? The e. coli have us outnumbered, the rats and the cockaroaches have us outnumbered, and and every bacteria is adapting faster than us. When we and our skyscrapers are long and gone, mold will still be alive and strong. We make the environment adapt to ourselves, rather than adapting to it, and that's fine; but how is that evolution?

So what if a simple bacteria have us outnumbered? So what if bacteria are constantly changing and adapting? Humans lack that ability, but we make up for it with our intelligence, which has helped us create more and different drugs to cope with the constant change of bacteria, and we'll probably keep inventing new drugs to keep combating new strains of viruses. And in this process, we don't lose millions upon millions of humans in research, whereas countless cells of bacteria must die before they make a change. The fact that we can continue to use our intelligence to protect ourselves sets us apart and above animals.

Making the environment adapt to us isn't evolution, but that adaptation has only been evident in the past 400 years or so. Evolution happens in millenniums, not a mere couple hundred years. And yes, I agree we are not the last stage of evolution because evolution doesn't stop itself. It's constantly happening, every mutation, every tumor is an attempt at evolution, but so far, they've all failed.

As for Asian being the most "evolved" race, doesn't that just sound a bit too Nazi-Hitler-Aryan Pride?

Uhh.. how about the fact that humans are the ones to domesticate animals, and not the other way around? The fact that we're intelligent makes us better. If we didn't have that, we wouldn't have developed tools and still be doing who knows what. What does the survival rate of an animal have to with how "advance" it is? Just because you can screw like jack rabbits doesn't mean you're the best in the world.

Yes, we are intelligent but you're forgetting the fact that some of our inventions were inspired by observing animals eg. the aeroplane.

If we compare one intelligent human to a 'dumb' human, does it mean the intelligent one is better than the 'dumb' one?

Yes, we are intelligent but you're forgetting the fact that some of our inventions were inspired by observing animals eg. the aeroplane.

Getting inspiration from animal has nothing to do with "animals being advanced"; in fact, it shows how smart humans are (because we can COPY thier evolutionary advantage without evolving). If the cloud inspire me to write a short story (and it often does)... Does that say anything about the superiority of the clouds? This line of thinking is absurd.

If we compare one intelligent human to a 'dumb' human, does it mean the intelligent one is better than the 'dumb' one?

Long Answer:

If car A can go from New York to Montreal in a shorter period of time than car B, does it mean that car A is faster?

If person A weights 20 lbs more than person B, does it mean that person B is heavier?

I think the problem lies in the usage of "advanced". If you consider cockroaches more "advanced" merely because they are more numerous, then we have very different views on what's "advanced".

It's impossible to argue, if our fundemental views are different. "Advanced" to me, means someone who's smarter, more complex, "harder to become". For example, any idiot can be a busboy (with some training), but very few can become a biochemist. This is what I base my views on.

Isn't this idea of "smarter" as "more advanced" just a wrong idea that humans have because we think the world revolves around us (figuratively speaking, before someone screams at me)? Why is smarter necessarily better? Obviously, smarter is better than dumb, but what about smarter as opposed to stronger? Each has its own merits, but people will say that being smarter is better because intelligence is the only thing which humans have above another organism, even though it's not necessarily better. Athens v. Sparta is a classic example. Everyone considers Athens to be the epitome of greatness, and Spartans to be half-barbarians and no match for the brilliant Athenians; when in fact, Sparta trashed Athens in the Peloponnesian War. So how is intelligence the most important indicator of being "advanced"?

"Harder to become". No animal comes even close to the elephant, and its trunk is extremely specialized (and probably the ears too). The human brain is closely paralleled in the brain of other primates, so does that mean the elephant is more advanced than humans? Archaebacteria can live in extreme conditions, like lava (or I've heard), and I think that's pretty hard to become, and yet, archaebacteria are the predecessors of "modern" bacteria and should be less advanced than bacteria.

Btw, did you know that most IQ tests are conducted with children under the age of 6? They are given problems, and each one of them are supposed to solve it in their own ways (this is different than the traditional written IQ tests). Asians score better in those as well, our slower growth rate notwithstanding (because Asians ages slightly slowly, an age 6 Asian only have the relative develpement of a younger European). So, "basically" an Asian child (relatively younger) can score better than an age 6 European. Did you know that it takes 9.5 months to 10 for an Asian woman to give birth (compared to 9 months of an European)? Black babies only need 8-8.5 months.

I will not argue that Asian did not have a culture advantage... we do. But, there are research (Rushton) with ADOPTED Asian children (with European parents) vs ADOPTED European children (with Asian parents); take a WILD guess which group scored higher (hint: the Asian children with European parents).

Alright then, I'll concede that Asians are more intelligent. However, I still don't believe that makes them better, because intelligence isn't everything.

About the time period of pregnancy, does it make much of a difference? The time the Asian children spend in the womb will simply be equal to the time the black children spend outside. If you look at the animal kingdom, it's not like the animals which keep the babies in the womb for a long time (namely mammals) are doing better than the other animals that just plop down eggs.

One of Rushton's speeches at the McGill University really got to me: "It is mathematically impossible for three independently develope groups of human to have the same intelligence."

Think about it, we have different height, different skin color, different eye color... YET exactly the same intelligence? WTF?

While I'm admitting that Asians are smarter, I have to say that this particular argument doesn't work because we all have exactly the same numbers of limbs and internal organs and that doesn't strike anyone as peculiar.

You can say that things like limbs and internals organs take a long time to evolve and such, but that means intelligence is very easy to evolve. Going back to your first argument about how complexity is intelligence and specialization, that means there a flaw in that argument, because the above suggests that intelligence is not specialized.

BTW: China DOES have 5000 years of history. There's fossils and records (technically, it's a bit less than 5000, but it's a lot earlier than Egypt of Geece).

I believe you that China has 5000 years of history. However, unless my history textbook and teacher are wrong, China was the last of the four river civilizations. At the very least, Mesopotamia had to be earlier than China because the Fertile Crescent was the beginning of civilization.

Also, your example of Einstein and the caveman (where they are magically put into the Ice Age) is a logical fallacy.

Why? Because I could say "People wearing bullet proof vests are superior." OR "People have can swim are superior."; simply by putting them in a situation where a bullet is about to hit or in the ocean. You cannot create a uneven situation to prove a point, that's not (what we call in science), a CONTROLLED environment.

No, I'm not saying that the caveman is superior to Einstein. It's that superiority depends on the exact situation. For example, if the world was mostly water, animals that can swim would be superior, but if it was mostly land, animals that don't need much water would be superior. That is, there is in general superiority.

Uhh.. how about the fact that humans are the ones to domesticate animals, and not the other way around? The fact that we're intelligent makes us better. If we didn't have that, we wouldn't have developed tools and still be doing who knows what. What does the survival rate of an animal have to with how "advance" it is? Just because you can screw like jack rabbits doesn't mean you're the best in the world.

White people were the ones who enslaved black people. Does not make them superior.

So what if we have other animals domesticated? After all the nukes and global warming, every animal we ever kicked around will going like rabbits over our dead bodies.

Besides, why should intelligence mean you're the best in the world?

Yes. And a more developed thought process.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Dogs have 39 pairs. A type of fern has 630 pairs.

So what if a simple bacteria have us outnumbered? So what if bacteria are constantly changing and adapting? Humans lack that ability, but we make up for it with our intelligence, which has helped us create more and different drugs to cope with the constant change of bacteria, and we'll probably keep inventing new drugs to keep combating new strains of viruses. And in this process, we don't lose millions upon millions of humans in research, whereas countless cells of bacteria must die before they make a change. The fact that we can continue to use our intelligence to protect ourselves sets us apart and above animals.

So let me get this straight. We're superior because we have an ability which can match the ability of another organism? Being able to keep up with bacteria only makes us equals.

Making the environment adapt to us isn't evolution, but that adaptation has only been evident in the past 400 years or so. Evolution happens in millenniums, not a mere couple hundred years. And yes, I agree we are not the last stage of evolution because evolution doesn't stop itself. It's constantly happening, every mutation, every tumor is an attempt at evolution, but so far, they've all failed.

When I say that humans make the environment adapt to them, I don't mean necessarily rolling over forests and blowing things up. Humans have been making the environment adapt to them since they created fire instead of searching for it.

Obviously, smarter is better than dumb, but what about smarter as opposed to stronger?

[...]

So how is intelligence the most important indicator of being "advanced"?

Well, this is why I would never argue that Blacks run faster, jump higher... etc...

Smarter is always better than dumber, but depending on the situation, it could be "better" or "worse" than stronger (with obvious reasons, no 120 lb genius would hold a candle to THE ROCK in a street fight).

With this in mind, do realize that I used "smarter" to meant "more advanced" because I believe the biggest distinction between Humans and Animals are our intelligence. We are no stronger than Elephants, no faster than Zebras, no more agile than Monkeys... but in layman's terms (since "advanced" is hardly a scientific distinction), we would never say Elephants, Zebras or Monkeys are "more advanced" than us; their numerous advantages notwithstanding. Obviously, if things were to change (some grand scale natural environmental change) then it is entirely possible for certain animals to survive better than Homo Sapians.

"Harder to become". No animal comes even close to the elephant, and its trunk is extremely specialized (and probably the ears too). The human brain is closely paralleled in the brain of other primates, so does that mean the elephant is more advanced than humans? Archaebacteria can live in extreme conditions, like lava (or I've heard), and I think that's pretty hard to become, and yet, archaebacteria are the predecessors of "modern" bacteria and should be less advanced than bacteria.Alright then, I'll concede that Asians are more intelligent. However, I still don't believe that makes them better, because intelligence isn't everything.

Well, Elephants use their trunks to drink and/or shower themselves (if I am missing other usage, point it out to me). We, humans, have other method that accomplishes the same thing. I never intend to mean literally "Become". Bacterias can live in extreme situations, so can Humans. We conquered almost every corner of the known world. However, there many things that animals can NEVER do (become like us). For example, they can never fight their natural predators effectively (we would be eaten by bigger predators like lions and tigers if we didn't have fire/clubs/spears/swords/firearms). They can never change their environment (we can regulate its temperature, the oxygen content... etc...)

About the time period of pregnancy, does it make much of a difference? The time the Asian children spend in the womb will simply be equal to the time the black children spend outside. If you look at the animal kingdom, it's not like the animals which keep the babies in the womb for a long time (namely mammals) are doing better than the other animals that just plop down eggs.

No. I didn't mean to say it makes any differences. It was a supplemental fact. Because Asians literally age slower (longer life span and long time spent in the mother's womb), it makes the difference in IQ even GREATER. Because a 6 year old Asian who scored 106 on an IQ test is in reality a LOT smarter than a Black child who scored 90 on the same test. That is because first of all, the score differences AND secondly, a 6 year old Asian is ACTUALLY younger in biological terms (less developed compared with its adult version). Imagine if age 18 is the time where most people reach intellectual maturity. Asians would need to be about age 20 to reach their peak. Whereas Blacks need only about 16 years. This is mirrored by the early sexual developement of the Blacks vs Europeans vs Asians. Since a 6 year old Asian is ONLY at 6/20 of his/her intellectual peak (wheras the Black child is at 6/16 of his/her developement), he/she will grow up (to his/her full potient) a lot smarter than what his/her IQ score will suggest at age 6.

While I'm admitting that Asians are smarter, I have to say that this particular argument doesn't work because we all have exactly the same numbers of limbs and internal organs and that doesn't strike anyone as peculiar.

You can say that things like limbs and internals organs take a long time to evolve and such, but that means intelligence is very easy to evolve. Going back to your first argument about how complexity is intelligence and specialization, that means there a flaw in that argument, because the above suggests that intelligence is not specialized.

But there's no distinct quality of quanity of "intelligence". If you pick two person out of 100, what are the chances they will have the same eye color? Pretty decent, right? Same two person, what are the chances they will have the same HEIGHT? Better yet, what are the chances they will have the same INTELLIGENCE?

All humans have two limbs, two eyes and so forth... but not all humans have the same eye color, same intelligence, same height...

Think about it this way, if there are a bag of coins (nickels, dimes and pennies). After we assort the coins into three piles, we found that they have different masses and shapes... so is it SO inconceivable that there's an uneven distribution of "nickels, dimes and pennies" in each pile?

Intelligence varies with each human, so does eye color, height... etc... so why is so hard to believe that over time, groups of humans developed a different gene pool that favored certain genes?

I believe you that China has 5000 years of history. However, unless my history textbook and teacher are wrong, China was the last of the four river civilizations. At the very least, Mesopotamia had to be earlier than China because the Fertile Crescent was the beginning of civilization.

I am not qualify to argue that; but I believe you. Perhaps you are right. I need to brush up on my ancient history.

No, I'm not saying that the caveman is superior to Einstein. It's that superiority depends on the exact situation. For example, if the world was mostly water, animals that can swim would be superior, but if it was mostly land, animals that don't need much water would be superior. That is, there is in general superiority.White people were the ones who enslaved black people. Does not make them superior.

This is because again, we have different views on superiority. I believe that intelligence MAKE superiority (because that's what defined us as humans). Btw, White are "smarter" than Blacks (according to IQ researches). However, like you said, that does not neccessarily mean "superior".

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Dogs have 39 pairs. A type of fern has 630 pairs.

Different length in chromosomes... The human genome is much more complex than ferns or dogs... BUT, yes, some animal DO have a equally and sometime more complex genome than Homo Sapians (due to their need for particular proteins and enmyzes and such).

So let me get this straight. We're superior because we have an ability which can match the ability of another organism? Being able to keep up with bacteria only makes us equals.

Of course. Because an animal cannot do what we do, but we can do what they do (in most cases).

Like my example with the busboys... Any genius can "bus a table" just as well as a busboy... that doesn't mean they are equals. It only means that the genius CAN DO what a busboy can. However the vise versa is not true (a busboy cannot do biochemistry).

Btw, I meant in general... I realize that there is "some skill" required in busing a table... and some busboys are student who COULD actually do research in biochemistry. I meant in general, on average...